Well, to put things into proper historical perspective, Chretien prorogued Parliament four times. It's a normal tool of Parliamentary procedure. It's just that Harper's reasons are so transparently and shamelessly self-serving...'
At least C-391 is going to stay on the agenda regardless of prorogation. If it weren't, there'd be guys not bothering to wait for the next election to start voting (from the rooftops).
The opposition parties really need to get their act together fast. We seem to be at a dangerous pass with Harper on the one side and weak and unelectable opposition leaders on the other... There isn't anybody that deserves my vote right now.
Chretien may have prorogued multiple times, but he wasn't a minority govt when he did it, was he?
I think one of the reasons we're angry is because it's been done *three* years in a row under Harper. In the past, Trudeau did it in consecutive years (69/70, 76/77) and so did Chretien (2002/03, because of the leadership convention/Martin power struggle) but three in a row is really a bit much. There should be an associated pay cut when parliament is prorogued.
You know, I actually think proroguing is worse in a majority situation, because it's just ramming the prorogation through without any way of Parliament stopping it. Here at least the opposition parties can actually do something about it, but they're just letting Harper walk all over them...
It's interesting for two reasons: 1) he brings up that traditionally Canada's Parliament was prorogued once a year and this is a return to that tradition (this session has actually lasted longer than average). I'm not a fan of the concept of proroguing nor the prime minister having the power to do it but it is food for thought.
2) the complete unwillingness of our MPs to do their jobs, preferring to launch 'independent' inquiries and committees and offices instead. This also speaks (in my mind) to the points above regarding the MPs being able to choose to force an election and propose the constitutional ammendments that Bob Rae is talking about. If they really want them they should put them to the people and let us decide.
I was listening to the CBC this morning about the pros/cons of proroguing parliament and made a few interesting points:
1. Parliament and Government are two different things. Just because the politicians are not sitting in the House, this doesn't mean that the government is no longer functioning. Policies are still being drafted, implemented, and executed far from the House.
2. What parliament does do is make the parties accountable for their actions to other parties and to the public, especially since they put cameras in the House.
3. Parliament is mostly theatre, a place to score political points with the public, to promote the parties in the minds of the voters. It's a place where the parties can present what they will do or are doing when they are not sitting in Parliament.
4. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars for the politicians to sit in the House and go through the parliamentary process. Have the Parliament NOT meet for three months actually saves taxpayer money.
Comments 11
At least C-391 is going to stay on the agenda regardless of prorogation. If it weren't, there'd be guys not bothering to wait for the next election to start voting (from the rooftops).
The opposition parties really need to get their act together fast. We seem to be at a dangerous pass with Harper on the one side and weak and unelectable opposition leaders on the other... There isn't anybody that deserves my vote right now.
Reply
I think one of the reasons we're angry is because it's been done *three* years in a row under Harper. In the past, Trudeau did it in consecutive years (69/70, 76/77) and so did Chretien (2002/03, because of the leadership convention/Martin power struggle) but three in a row is really a bit much. There should be an associated pay cut when parliament is prorogued.
Reply
HRH.
Reply
There's a Facebook group against the prorogue:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=260348091419
Reply
Excellent idea re the pay cut.
Reply
http://www.newstalk1010.com/blog/1045491
It's interesting for two reasons:
1) he brings up that traditionally Canada's Parliament was prorogued once a year and this is a return to that tradition (this session has actually lasted longer than average). I'm not a fan of the concept of proroguing nor the prime minister having the power to do it but it is food for thought.
2) the complete unwillingness of our MPs to do their jobs, preferring to launch 'independent' inquiries and committees and offices instead. This also speaks (in my mind) to the points above regarding the MPs being able to choose to force an election and propose the constitutional ammendments that Bob Rae is talking about. If they really want them they should put them to the people and let us decide.
Reply
1. Parliament and Government are two different things. Just because the politicians are not sitting in the House, this doesn't mean that the government is no longer functioning. Policies are still being drafted, implemented, and executed far from the House.
2. What parliament does do is make the parties accountable for their actions to other parties and to the public, especially since they put cameras in the House.
3. Parliament is mostly theatre, a place to score political points with the public, to promote the parties in the minds of the voters. It's a place where the parties can present what they will do or are doing when they are not sitting in Parliament.
4. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars for the politicians to sit in the House and go through the parliamentary process. Have the Parliament NOT meet for three months actually saves taxpayer money.
Points to consider.
Reply
Leave a comment